• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Wrangor will force a woman against her will to carry a child to term and then continue to vote a party that abandons the child as soon as it is born and continues to treat women and minorities like lesser humans and denies them equal rights, all while having the gall to compare it to the civil rights struggle. Now that's what I call evil.

You missed the point, Wrangor, as usual. You are not nearly as smart as you fancy yourself to be. How you post this with a straight face as your party separates children from their parents is beyond me, but I am glad you in your personal life you don't do that. And your "treat people of all backgrounds with the equal respect of humanity that is not earned but God given" copout sounds exactly like something Pence would say as he takes some new action to deny equal rights to gay people, and rings just as hollow.

Somehow you manage to actually be a worse poster than I fake try to be. Impressive.
 
But good to hear you are not voting at all, in any election anymore. Just completely not voting for anyone, in any election - not just the Presidential election. And you won't go back while the Republican party is like this. Kudos.

Don’t understand your statement. I am most definitely voting. I am just not a blanket red voter (and really never have been, but even less so now). I’ll be voting Democrat in the Senate race and often vote democrat in local races depending on the different candidates.
 
I see both sides of the abortion debate (unlike a lot of issues where I struggle to see the opposing viewpoint - take gay rights for instance). It comes down to two things for me: (1) I don’t believe that a fetus up to the point of viability is on equal footing with a woman bearing that fetus and relatedly (2) I don’t believe the government should curb the rights of a woman to choose by weighing the rights of the fetus equal to or moreso than the woman.

State should stay out of it.
 
I see both sides of the abortion debate (unlike a lot of issues where I struggle to see the opposing viewpoint - take gay rights for instance). It comes down to two things for me: (1) I don’t believe that a fetus up to the point of viability is on equal footing with a woman bearing that fetus and relatedly (2) I don’t believe the government should curb the rights of a woman to choose by weighing the rights of the fetus equal to or moreso than the woman.

State should stay out of it.

What about past the point of viability? Should that be the standard, and as science improves and pushes the time of viability earlier, does the law adjust?
 
1. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and that is a big if, I believe it would still be a matter left up to the States. I think it's more likely Roe v. Wade is kept in place, and you see individual States' restrictive laws on abortion be upheld where they may not have in the past. If Roe is overturned, you'd see a handful of states outlaw abortion completely, and another dozen or so put very strict restrictions on it. Then, in about 15-20 years, those states will, undoubtedly, have a much higher poverty rate, citizens in need of government assistance and crime. I'd imagine child abuse and neglect cases would increase, as well. I don't say this as a statement to keep abortion legal. I only say it as the states most likely to outlaw and/or restrict abortion are also the states least likely to take care of those same mothers and children.

2. This isn't just a huge win for conservatives in that they get a 5th justice, but also for the mid-terms. No one is better at manipulating the populace than Trump and he is going to use this nomination and play it like a fiddle. Nothing will get the evangelical and republican base rabid to vote than a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade. I see trump delaying the nomination and confirmation hearings in order to make sure people come out to vote in November. He'll make up a lie that the democrats will block his nomination and if they lose the Senate they wont get it. This really could prevent the "blue wave" the left was hoping for.

3. I see that Britt Grant is 40 years old. I think that's ridiculously young for a Supreme Court Justice. In my mind, one should be at least 50 before they should be considered to be nominated. I don't need to know her credentials to know they're not enough in 15 years to warrant being considered one of the top 9 most qualified and legal minds in the country.
 
the basic problem with an issue like abortion is that you cannot make a compromise without undercutting the central rationale for your position

this is true for both sides

if you believe that life begins at conception, then abortion under all circumstances is taking human life

if you believe that a woman should have absolute control over her body, then any interference on the part of the state is unacceptable

as a result, all compromise solutions can be achieved only if we undermine the basis of our views, but then if we have agreed to an undermining of our own views, then what's the point of having them at all?

democracies do well with questions that can be settled with compromise, the abortion issue makes all compromises appear strained and thoroughly unsatisfactory, difficult to live with

in this sense the abortion issue resembles the slavery issue

either slavery was acceptable, and so there was no legal basis to ban it anywhere, or it was unaccepteble, and then how could it be legal anywhere?

the democratic efforts to compromise the slavery question failed miserably in the long haul and ultimately led to schism and the slaughter of the civil war

let us hope that we can avoid that sorry precedent in dealing with abortion
 
What about past the point of viability? Should that be the standard, and as science improves and pushes the time of viability earlier, does the law adjust?

I think this is the most difficult issue regarding viability from a legal perspective and one I've grappled with a bit. Had a couple debates in legal philosophy classes at Wake as well as in Con Law in law school about it and hardly any two people agreed even from the pro-life/pro-choice side.

I'm of the mindset that as science improves and pushes the time of viability earlier that this continues to be used as a benchmark for when you can obtain an abortion but what if the viability point drops to 18-20 weeks yet requires extremely costly medical procedures and a lengthy hospital stay for the child to remain alive? These are practical financial implications that need to be considered. Should there be clarification that legal "viability" requires there a minimal amount of medical intervention? But then where do you draw the line?
 
the basic problem with an issue like abortion is that you cannot make a compromise without undercutting the central rationale for your position

this is true for both sides

if you believe that life begins at conception, then abortion under all circumstances is taking human life

if you believe that a woman should have absolute control over her body, then any interference on the part of the state is unacceptable

I don't believe that this is necessarily true for both sides. Yes, if you believe that life begins at conception then abortion under all circumstances is taking a human life - this is true. However, I think you've slightly mischaracterized the mainstream pro-choice position. It is not necessarily that a woman should have "absolute control over her own body" whereby "any" interference from the state is unacceptable but rather that the state's interest in the fetus' life and/or protecting the mother's health does not become "compelling" enough to override a woman's right to privacy until certain stages of the pregnancy.

I'm sure that there are a percentage of pro-choicers out there who believe the state should never prohibit a woman from obtaining an abortion under right to choose/privacy/own body concerns, but I don't find this to be the prevailing mainstream view.

The Roe Court broke down the pregnancy roughly into three trimesters (technically first trimester; end of first trimester to fetal viability; fetal viability to birth) and evaluated the competing interests between a woman's right to privacy and the state's interest in the fetus' life in each:

First trimester: an abortion is generally safer than childbirth and the state's interest does not reach that of the woman's right to privacy. There's no compelling reason for the state to pass restrictions on abortion for the mother's health.

Second trimester: state's interest in protecting the mother's health becomes more compelling and therefore the state can regulate abortion to the extent that it is reasonable to protect/preserve the mother's health.

Viability/Third trimester: state's interest in the fetus' life is compelling and therefore the state can ban abortion in furtherance of this compelling state interest. Here, in the Court's opinion, the state's interest reaches a point overriding the mother's right to privacy.

I actually find Roe v. Wade to strike an impressive balance in the abortion arena and that the Court addressed competing legal interests quite well particularly for a decision in 1973. This is the primary reason I'm concerned about overturning Roe - that any future decision by the SCOTUS would be more likely to be entrenched in an ideological polarizing conflict rather than a logical step-by-step analysis of competing legal interests at various stages.
 
Last edited:
I think this is the most difficult issue regarding viability from a legal perspective and one I've grappled with a bit. Had a couple debates in legal philosophy classes at Wake as well as in Con Law in law school about it and hardly any two people agreed even from the pro-life/pro-choice side.

I'm of the mindset that as science improves and pushes the time of viability earlier that this continues to be used as a benchmark for when you can obtain an abortion but what if the viability point drops to 18-20 weeks yet requires extremely costly medical procedures and a lengthy hospital stay for the child to remain alive? These are practical financial implications that need to be considered. Should there be clarification that legal "viability" requires there a minimal amount of medical intervention? But then where do you draw the line?

The inherent dignity of humanity demands Medicare for All
 
I think this is the most difficult issue regarding viability from a legal perspective and one I've grappled with a bit. Had a couple debates in legal philosophy classes at Wake as well as in Con Law in law school about it and hardly any two people agreed even from the pro-life/pro-choice side.

I'm of the mindset that as science improves and pushes the time of viability earlier that this continues to be used as a benchmark for when you can obtain an abortion but what if the viability point drops to 18-20 weeks yet requires extremely costly medical procedures and a lengthy hospital stay for the child to remain alive? These are practical financial implications that need to be considered. Should there be clarification that legal "viability" requires there a minimal amount of medical intervention? But then where do you draw the line?

Honestly, this is where my personal views get tripped up as well. I'm probably for more restrictive practices than many (especially if we have better sex education, availability of birth control and adequate social services in place for kids and parents that would eliminate the economic drive for abortion - which I've seen is close to 70%, but not sure how real that stat is). But I'm not sure where the line is for me. I don't really view getting the morning after pill as an abortion, but would extend right to life probably somewhere before viability - personally, I'm not sure where that line is - there is a lot of time between having brainwaves and an independent heartbeat at 6 weeks and viability around 25 weeks. In life of the mother cases, if we were faced with a decision, I just don't want the state making that hard and personal decision for me.

From a legal perspective, it seems that if there is not a total ban (which is easy to understand), viability is the most easily definable benchmark - but for reasons you outlined, there would be endless court cases arguing over how that line is defined.
 
Unrelated to the Roe v. Wade issues, what are everyone's thoughts on how the Democrats should handle this nomination? I find myself pretty torn. I criticized the GOP in 2016 for not bringing the Garland nomination up for a vote and I stand by that. The president has the right to nominate a justice and the Senate has the power of advice and consent. I don't believe that choosing not to entertain the nominee is "advice and consent."

I believe the biggest current issue with politics today is the erosion of institutional norms which has the byproduct of undermining our democracy (even if little by little). The Senate refusing to do its job regarding a SCOTUS nominee undermines the norms through which we've traditionally filled the Supreme Court. I think Democrats doing the same, while likely useful from a political perspective, is equally as bad an idea. However given the practical implications of a potentially far-right member of the Supreme Court on social issues and rights in this country, do you stand by institutional integrity thereby leaving open an attack on advancing your political ideology - particularly when one party (here the GOP) simply is not going to do the same?

It's a tough position for me. I think Democrats have every right to vote "no" on whoever Donald nominates if they believe the justice is not qualified for the job. But I disagree with calling for the same treatment Mitch gave Garland. It's fighting fire with fire, but that just leads to more shit burning down. I realize people will disagree with me and that this is at odds with my generally progressive political views, but this is a difficult decision individual Democrats have to make IMO.
 
Unrelated to the Roe v. Wade issues, what are everyone's thoughts on how the Democrats should handle this nomination? I find myself pretty torn. I criticized the GOP in 2016 for not bringing the Garland nomination up for a vote and I stand by that. The president has the right to nominate a justice and the Senate has the power of advice and consent. I don't believe that choosing not to entertain the nominee is "advice and consent."

I believe the biggest current issue with politics today is the erosion of institutional norms which has the byproduct of undermining our democracy (even if little by little). The Senate refusing to do its job regarding a SCOTUS nominee undermines the norms through which we've traditionally filled the Supreme Court. I think Democrats doing the same, while likely useful from a political perspective, is equally as bad an idea. However given the practical implications of a potentially far-right member of the Supreme Court on social issues and rights in this country, do you stand by institutional integrity thereby leaving open an attack on advancing your political ideology - particularly when one party (here the GOP) simply is not going to do the same?

It's a tough position for me. I think Democrats have every right to vote "no" on whoever Donald nominates if they believe the justice is not qualified for the job. But I disagree with calling for the same treatment Mitch gave Garland. It's fighting fire with fire, but that just leads to more shit burning down. I realize people will disagree with me and that this is at odds with my generally progressive political views, but this is a difficult decision individual Democrats have to make IMO.

The judicial filibuster is gone. Democrats can't pull a Garland on this nominee. So unless somebody like Flake or Corker grows a set of actual balls instead of just talking, there is no way to block Trump's nominee.
 
I don't believe that this is necessarily true for both sides. Yes, if you believe that life begins at conception then abortion under all circumstances is taking a human life - this is true. However, I think you've slightly mischaracterized the mainstream pro-choice position. It is not necessarily that a woman should have "absolute control over her own body" whereby "any" interference from the state is unacceptable but rather that the state's interest in the fetus' life and/or protecting the mother's health does not become "compelling" enough to override a woman's right to privacy until certain stages of the pregnancy.

I'm sure that there are a percentage of pro-choicers out there who believe the state should never prohibit a woman from obtaining an abortion under right to choose/privacy/own body concerns, but I don't find this to be the prevailing mainstream view.

The Roe Court broke down the pregnancy roughly into three trimesters (technically first trimester; end of first trimester to fetal viability; fetal viability to birth) and evaluated the competing interests between a woman's right to privacy and the state's interest in the fetus' life in each:

First trimester: an abortion is generally safer than childbirth and the state's interest does not reach that of the woman's right to privacy. There's no compelling reason for the state to pass restrictions on abortion for the mother's health.

Second trimester: state's interest in protecting the mother's health becomes more compelling and therefore the state can regulate abortion to the extent that it is reasonable to protect/preserve the mother's health.

Viability/Third trimester: state's interest in the fetus' life is compelling and therefore the state can ban abortion in furtherance of this compelling state interest. Here, in the Court's opinion, the state's interest reaches a point overriding the mother's right to privacy.

I actually find Roe v. Wade to strike an impressive balance in the abortion arena and that the Court addressed competing legal interests quite well particularly for a decision in 1973. This is the primary reason I'm concerned about overturning Roe - that any future decision by the SCOTUS would be more likely to be entrenched in an ideological polarizing conflict rather than a logical step-by-step analysis of competing legal interests at various stages.

why not? because, as I said, the heart of the argument is that a woman should control her own body against state interference
 
The judicial filibuster is gone. Democrats can't pull a Garland on this nominee. So unless somebody like Flake or Corker grows a set of actual balls instead of just talking, there is no way to block Trump's nominee.

Right. I just meant Democratic Senators publicly calling for a delay until after the election - not that they can do anything official like filibuster. I think every democrat is going to have to take a position for their constituents.
 
Thread on what actual happens when abortion is "banned":

 
why not? because, as I said, the heart of the argument is that a woman should control her own body against state interference

I’m saying that I don’t believe that is the heart of the argument from most pro-choice believers. I think plenty of them, myself included, argue that a woman has a right to control her own body until the fetus reaches a point (for me viability) where both entities then require consideration from the state.
 
Back
Top